#FactCheck- Viral video does not show Iran targeting a Pakistani tanker in Strait of Hormuz
Executive Summary
Amid the ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video of a cargo ship engulfed in flames is being widely shared across social media platforms. The clip shows a vessel burning intensely at sea, with users claiming that Iran targeted the ship with a drone for attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz without permission. Some users have also claimed that the destroyed vessel was a Pakistani-flagged oil tanker hit by Iranian missiles. However, research by CyberPeace found the claim to be false. Our verification also reveals that the viral video is being misrepresented.
Claim
Social media users, including an X (formerly Twitter) account named “IranDefenceForce,” shared the video claiming that Iran targeted an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for allegedly violating restrictions.
Fact Check
A keyword-based news search led us to multiple credible reports mentioning a statement by Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. According to reports, Iran had allowed ships from “friendly countries” including India, China, Russia, Iraq, and Pakistan to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
A March 26, 2026 report by The Hindu stated that Araghchi also emphasized Iran’s assertion of sovereignty over the strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The same statement was also shared via the official X handle of the Iranian Consulate in Mumbai. During a frame-by-frame analysis of the viral video, we noticed the word “SAFEEN” written on a part of the ship. Using this clue, we conducted a targeted news search and found a report by Reuters dated March 4, 2026.
According to the report, a Malta-flagged container ship named Safeen Prestige was damaged in an attack while heading toward the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping sources cited in the report stated that the vessel was struck around 1109 GMT while sailing eastward, approximately two nautical miles north of Oman. The ship had reportedly departed from Sharjah Port in the United Arab Emirates but was damaged before reaching its destination. Its last known location was in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, earlier this month, another cargo vessel named Mayuri Naree was also attacked near Iran’s Qeshm Island. As per Reuters, an explosion caused a fire in the engine room, after which 20 crew members were rescued by the Omani navy, while three remained missing.
Conclusion
The viral video does not show Iran targeting a Pakistani oil tanker for violating restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz. In reality, the clip features the Malta-flagged container ship Safeen Prestige, which was damaged in an unidentified attack in the Persian Gulf. The claim being circulated on social media is misleading.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The much-awaited DPDP Rules have now finally been released in the official Gazette on 3rd January 2025 for consultation. The draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (DPDP Rules) invites objections and suggestions from stakeholders that can be submitted on MyGov (https://mygov.in) by 18th February 2025.
DPDP Rules at Glance
- Processing of Children's Data: The draft rules say that ‘A Data Fiduciary shall adopt appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that verifiable consent of the parent is obtained before the processing of any personal data of a child’. It entails that children below 18 will need parents' consent to create social media accounts.
- The identity of the parents and their age can be verified through reliable details of identity and age available with the Data Fiduciary, voluntarily provided identity proof or virtual token mapped to the same. The data fiduciaries are also required to observe due diligence for checking that the individual identifying themselves as the parent is an adult who is identifiable, if required, in connection with compliance with any law for the time being in force in India. Additionally, the government will also extend exemptions from these specific provisions pertaining to processing of children's data to educational institutions, and child welfare organisations.
- Processing of Personal Data Outside India: The draft rules specify that the transfer of personal data outside India, whether it is processed within the country or outside in connection with offering goods or services to individuals in India, is permitted only if the Data Fiduciary complies with the conditions prescribed by the Central Government through general or specific orders.
- Intimation of Personal Data Breach: On becoming aware of a personal data breach, the Data Fiduciary must promptly notify the affected Data Principals in a clear and concise manner through their user account or registered communication method. This notification should include a description of the breach (nature, extent, timing, and location), potential consequences for the Data Principal, measures taken or planned to mitigate risks, recommended safety actions for the Data Principal, and contact information of a representative to address queries. Additionally, the Data Fiduciary must inform the Board without delay, providing details of the breach, its likely impact, and initial findings. Within 72 hours (or a longer period allowed by the Board upon request), the Data Fiduciary must submit updated information, including the facts and circumstances of the breach, mitigation measures, findings about the cause, steps to prevent recurrence, and a report on notifications given to affected Data Principals.
- Data Protection Board: The draft rules propose establishing the Data Protection Board, which will function as a digital office, enabling remote hearings, and will hold powers to investigate breaches, impose penalties, and perform related regulatory functions.
Journey of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The foundation for the single statute legislation on Data Protection was laid down in 2017, in the famous ‘Puttaswami judgment,’ which is also well recognised as the Aadhar Card judgment. In this case, ‘privacy’ was recognised as intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus making ‘Right to Privacy’ a fundamental right. In the landmark Puttaswamy ruling, the apex court of India stressed the need for a comprehensive data protection law.
Eight years on and several draft bills later, the Union Cabinet approved the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDP) on 5th July 2023. The bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 3rd August 2023, and It was passed by Lok Sabha on 7th August, and the bill passed by Rajya Sabha on 9th August and got the president's assent on 11th August 2023; and India finally came up with the ‘Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. This is a significant development that has the potential to bring about major improvements to online privacy and the handling of digital personal data by the platforms.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is a newly-enacted legislation designed to protect individuals' digital personal data. It aims to ensure compliance by Data Fiduciaries and imposes specific obligations on both Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries. The Act promotes consent-based data collection practices and establishes the Data Protection Board to oversee compliance and address grievances. Additionally, it includes provisions for penalties of up to ₹250 crores in the event of a data breach. However, despite the DPDP Act being passed by parliament last year, the Act has not yet taken effect since its rules and regulations are still not finalised.
Conclusion
It is heartening to see that the Ministry of Electronics and Technology (MeitY) has finally released the draft of the much-awaited DPDP rules for consultation from stakeholders. Though noting certain positive aspects, there is still room for addressing certain gaps and multiple aspects under the draft rules that require attention. The public consultation, including the inputs from the tech platforms, is likely to see critical inputs on multiple aspects under the proposed rules. One such key area of interest will be the requirement of verifiable parental consent, which will likely include recommendations for a balanced approach which maintains children’s safety and mechanisms for the requirement of verifiable consent. The Provisions permitting government access to personal data on grounds of national security are also expected to face scrutiny. The proposed rules, after the consultation process, will be taken into consideration for finalisation after 18th February 2025. The move towards establishing a robust data protection law in India signals a significant step toward enhancing trust and accountability in the digital ecosystem. However, its success will hinge on effective implementation, clear compliance mechanisms, and the adaptability of stakeholders to this evolving regulatory landscape.
References
Introduction
Cybercrime in India is developing at a rapid rate in terms of depth and volume, with culprits leveraging technology, anonymity, and social engineering to exploit unsuspecting victims. In a high-profile instance of coordinated police action, the Delhi Police Crime Branch recently cracked a large-scale pan-India cybercrime syndicate with its arms stretching across Delhi, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. The syndicate used to be involved in a range of cybercrimes, from sextortion and online fraud to fake call centres and cloning of bank accounts. With over ₹5 crore of illicit financial transactions revealed, the operation highlights the critical role of proactive cyber policing, data security and public awareness in India's war against digital crime.
A Multi-State Operation: Crime Network across States
On May 24, 2025, on receiving a tip-off, the Delhi Police conducted a specific raid in New Ashok Nagar to catch a suspect consignment said to be used for cybercrime. This resulted in a multi-layered investigation that revealed a large crime syndicate. Police recovered 28 mobile phones, 30 SIM cards, 15 debit cards, 8 cheque books, and two laptops, equipment said to have been used in crimes ranging from sextortion to fake loan scams.
Three of the initial arrests revealed the use of fake kits like pre-activated SIMs and counterfeit documents to create phoney digital identities and bank accounts. They were being used to bypass KYC norms and make untraceable transactions, illustrating how cyber thieves exploit digital identity as well as financial authentication loopholes in the system.
Fake Call Centre Falsely Claiming to be a Lender
Tracing the leads, the investigation then led the police to Mundka, a semi-residential and industrial area in Delhi, where a fake call centre in the name of a loan assistance service was operating. Suspects were allegedly operating the business. With deceptive scripts, their telemarketing staff lured victims with the offer of instant personal loans. When a prospective victim replied favorably and was willing to go further, he was asked to send identification documents and was then forced to pay a "processing fee." Once the payment was made, the accused would cut off contact immediately, leaving the victims shortchanged.
During the raid, seven individuals were apprehended, six of whom were trained tele-callers with a reasonable level of technical skill. In spite of possessing educational certificates and receiving a meagre pay of between ₹8,000 and ₹9,000 a month, these individuals had been enticed into the cybercrime network, demonstrating how educated youth are now more commonly being exploited or recruited by such scam networks in return for quick money.
Uncovering the Sextortion Racket
The most shocking disclosure was that of a sextortion racket being run from New Ashok Nagar, a residential area located in West Delhi, New Delhi. Suspects tricked victims with fraudulent Facebook profiles, contacted them on Messenger, and then changed to WhatsApp video calls. Pornographic videos were played on such calls while the reactions of the victim were secretly recorded. These were later utilised for extortion by threatening to share them with the whole world. The ability of such a group to blackmail and psychologically manipulate the victims indicates the psychological nature of cybercrime and the need for online safety education.
Impact and Significance: A Wake-Up Call for Law Enforcement and Public Awareness
This crackdown is uncovering some ominous trends that reflect the changing face of cybercrime in India. The syndicate's framework highlights the organised and multi-state nature of cybercrime, mostly operating through systemic loopholes. Misuse of social media sites and fintech apps is also rampant, and these are being leveraged for scams, sextortion, and monetary fraud. One of the most concerning trends is young people becoming more engaged in cybercrime, either out of economic necessity or enticed by easy cash. Most of these scams increasingly involve psychological manipulation, particularly in sextortion, where shame and fear are employed as tools. Digital identity fraud has also been facilitated through false documents and lenient Know Your Customer (KYC) checks, with fraudsters being able to evade verification processes.
These observations underscore the necessity of strong reporting channels. There also needs to be an urgent implementation of stringent verification standards in the telecom and banking industries, along with extensive community-level digital literacy initiatives to sensitise citizens to online threats and preventive measures.
CyberPeace Vision: Building a Safe Digital India
India needs a multi-level cyber security approach, comprising people awareness, AI-driven detection systems, and coordination of inter-state policing. Precedence needs to be given to:
- Capacity building of cyber police units.
- Real-time exchange of scam intelligence among law enforcement.
- Schools, colleges, and workplaces should be aware of digital hygiene.
- Rehabilitation of cyber-offenders, especially youth.
- Countering online misinformation and disinformation through fact-checking and public education campaigns
- Ensuring inclusivity in cyber safety policies so vulnerable populations, including rural users, senior citizens, and linguistic minorities, are not left behind
The breakdown of the syndicate is a major victory, but the absence of difficulty with which these networks function highlights the need for cybercrime prevention initiatives, not after the fact.
Conclusion
The Delhi Police bust of a pan-India cybercrime gang is evidence of the increasing reach and audacity of cyber crooks from one corner of India to another. From sextortion and social engineering to financial fraud and identity theft on the web, the bust demonstrates how deep and pervasive cybercrime gangs have become. It is also a reminder that anyone can get entangled and that education, awareness, and early reporting are our best defence. With India's online presence expanding day by day, our collective cyber awareness must keep pace. The fight against cybercrime will not be won only by arrests, but through a national effort to secure our digital spaces.
References
- https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-police-cyber-crime-syndicate-10047218/
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-police-bust-pan-india-cybercrime-syndicate/article69652694.ece#:~:text=The%20Delhi%20police%20have%20dismantled,and%20an%20orchestrated%20sextortion%20racket.
- https://cybercrime.gov.in/
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/save/online-scams-are-on-the-rise-learn-about-the-latest-tricks-fraudsters-are-using-to-identify-frauds-and-protect-yourself/articleshow/114162295.cms?from=mdr
.webp)
Introduction
Meta Platforms is experiencing a long-term surge of lawsuits that not only question particular practices, but also the very design and governance of its platforms, across the United States and beyond. This range of privacy breaches to youth mental health damages and antitrust issues are all indicative of a new era of judicial, regulatory, and civil society scrutiny of the duties of big tech firms. The main question is no longer whether harmful content is placed on platforms, but to what extent they are actively creating harm-producing environments.
From Content to Conduct: A Turning Point in Legal Strategy
Over the years, Meta and other sites have depended on legal safeguards like the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which protects companies against liability due to user-created content. New ways of testing that protection are now being tried.
Recent incidents have shifted off the blame of particular content and has placed the emphasis on the design of the platform. Courts are becoming more receptive to consider whether the characteristics of infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-based ranking systems are contributing to quantifiable harm.
In March 2026, a California jury declared that Meta and Google were negligent in creating platforms that led to youth addiction and mental health problems. The jury decided that Meta and Google were to pay off a joint sum of 6 million dollars in damages, with 70 percent of the sum being charged on Meta. It is a bellwether case, which means that it is related to about 2,000 other pending cases by parents and school districts. This change is important as it avoids legal barriers. When the liability is linked to the design decisions instead of user-created content, accountability begins to shift.
The Youth Harm Cases: A Big Tobacco Moment
Social media are becoming the subject of increased scrutiny by courts and regulators as products that have quantifiable psychological impacts. The most impactful group of lawsuits against Meta is, perhaps, the one concerning youth mental health.
A day prior to the California verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages due to failure to safeguard young users against child predators on Instagram and Facebook, and found that the company had lied to consumers about the safety of its products and violated state consumer protection laws.
Similar arguments have been presented in other lawsuits filed by attorneys general in over 30 states, and the cases reflect previous regulatory turning points in other industries such as tobacco. The question that courts are not merely asking is whether there is harm or not. They are questioning whether businesses were aware of creating systems that capitalize on behavioral weaknesses. It has been reported in internal documents and accounts of former employees that Meta made a profit by intentionally turning its platforms into addictions to children, with algorithmic functions tailored to drive users into engagement loops, maximising time on platform to the detriment of wellbeing.
Meta has refuted these characterisations, claiming that teen mental health is multifaceted and cannot be blamed on an individual app. The companies have indicated that they will appeal the verdicts.
Privacy and Data Misuse: An Ongoing Fault Line
Platform design is not the only issue that Meta faces in legal matters. Cases centered on privacy have been a recurrent problem in the last ten years, and previous cases have claimed that Facebook monitored users even after they have logged out, scanned personal messages, and utilized personal data in a manner that was beyond user expectations. In more recent times, in April 2026, a class action suit was filed claiming that WhatsApp messages were accessed by Meta employees and third-party contractors, despite the long-standing end-to-end encryption guarantees of the platform.
These instances indicate a structural problem that is consistent. Consent mechanisms and privacy policies tend to be out of date with the reality of data use, and the gap between legal compliance and what users actually know or expect.
Antitrust: A Win, But Not a Clean One
One of the legal fronts was Meta all the way. In November 2025, a judge in the US District Court, James Boasberg, declared that Meta was not a social networking monopoly, finding that the FTC did not demonstrate that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp by the company were against the antitrust law. The decision has since been appealed by the FTC, which continues to argue that "Meta broke our antitrust laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that American consumers have been harmed by it.
The case also demonstrates a significant drawback of the antitrust law as a form of regulation of tech companies. By the time the trial occurred five years after the lawsuit was initiated, the social media market had evolved such that Tik Tok was a major competitor, undermining the market definition claims of the FTC. The structural issue of whether a few platforms are too powerful in the communication of the masses is not answered, although the legal claim in this instance might have been unsuccessful.
Policy Takeaways: What This Means Going Forward
The accumulating number of lawsuits against Meta provides a number of valuable lessons to policymakers.
- Platform design has become a regulatory topic. Laws should go beyond content regulation and deal with the construction of systems. Engagement maximising features can also increase harm, and this trade-off must be governed explicitly.
- Transparency should be mandatory and not discretionary. Privacy policies and disclosures on platforms are usually too complicated or ambiguous. Regulators might be required to make more transparent and standardised disclosures regarding the use of data and the operation of recommendation systems.
- Section 230 safeguards are under reinterpretation. Courts are becoming open to restrict immunity in cases where the harm is associated with the conduct of the platform and not the content of the user. This would redefine the law of all digital platforms, and not only Meta.
- Cross-border coordination is needed. Meta is an international company, yet the regulatory reaction is still divided. This will require more coordination among jurisdictions to guarantee uniform enforcement and to eliminate regulatory arbitrage.
Conclusion
The lawsuits of Meta are not single cases. They are a more general reconsideration of the regulation of digital platforms and the accountability of those responsible when design decisions have harm at scale. In the wider context of the technology ecosystem, the implications are structural. Courts are starting to question not only what is hosted on them, but how they work and why they are constructed in the manner they are.
The age of minimal responsibility is being supplanted by a more challenging requirement: that platforms should foresee, quantify, and alleviate the harms they produce. The result of these cases will not only decide the future of Meta in terms of legal matters. They will influence the regulations of the digital economy in the years to come.
References
- https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jury-finds-meta-and-youtube-liable-in-landmark-youth-addiction-case
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-ftc-whatsapp-instagram/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/ftc-appeals-metaruling-antitrust-instagram-whatsapp.html
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw0zgz9zyo
